The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1887-03-31
LAW BREAKERS.
FOUND HANGING.

his room. 1t was supposed he had sui
cided, but later it was found to be &
/ murder and robbery. MoffS .S;is quit,
Wen-to-do, and usually kept vaiuables
in the house, and this day it was
known that he had money in his posses
sion. 1t seems the thieves went to gel
the money, and strung him up to make
him tell where it was concealed
Learning this, in their greed and haste
to get it, the thieves neglected the un
fortunate man and left him hanging
and he died. They secured quite .
large amount of booty. No clue to the
perpetrators. The country is greatly
worked up and every effort is being
the late discovery of the cause of death
has given them abundant time to get
out of the country.
| HOT HOODED LAWYERS.
CHARLESTON, S. c., March 26.-At
| Newberry to-day, while case was pro-
crossing before Justice Bleach, George
Johnston and John s. Jones, attorneys
representing the parties to the suit
pulled their pistols and opened fire on
each other. Nine shots were fired.
Johnston was shot through the right
ear, in the left arm, and in the thigh,
| but was not seriously hurt. Jones was
| shot through the body and perhaps
fatally wounded. In trying to stop
the firing Lawyer Cromer had three
holes shot through his clothing. The
| court room was crowded at the time of
| the affray. Both Johnston and Jones
are highly connected and among the
| most prominent men in the community.
RELEASED ON BAIL.
CHICAGO, March 26.-Daniel J.
Wren, County Commissioner, Adam
OchS and John Z. Van Pelt, ex-mem-
Der of the Cook County Board, arrested
for defrauding the county, furnished
bail in the sum of 10000 each to-day,
and were released from arrest.
THE PADDOCK CASE.
SIOUX CITY, Ia, March 26.-The in
terest in the Haddock case is intensi-
fed as the taking of testimony pro-
ceeds. Important witnesses for the
prosecution are being held in reserve.
An old man named VanIngham testi
fed that the form and carriage of the
man he saw pass his window on the
run, after the shot was fired and pro-
ceeding from the scene of the murder,
was John Arensdorf. This bit of di-
rect testimony created fiutter of eX-
element. The cross examination of
this witness was unusually vigorous
and a contradictory line of evidence
was produced and clearly admitted be-
tween his former statements at the
ccrcner's inquest and the testimony be-
fore the Grand Jury. Another i'm
pOrtant bit of testimony was given by
John FitZsimmons. He was looking
out of the Columbia House door when
the shot was fired, and through the
darkness saw the assassin commit the
deed, but it was too dark to recognize
him further than to state the color of
his pants was light. The man who
fred the shot went towards the bridge.
SIOUX CITY, March 2s.-The Had
dock murder trial was resumed this
morning. The missing witness. Will
hanson, a hack driver, was brought
and placed upon the stand. He had
been captured at Lemars. Twenty-Five
miles east of here, Saturday. lie sub
stantiated the testimony of United
having driven that official that evening
from the depot to his residence, and
having been stopped near the scene of
the murder by one of the parties under
indictment. The next witness was
Harry Leavitt, the man who took a
leading part in plotting the conspiracy
that cost Haddock his life. and who
turned states evidence.
SIOUX CITY, March 29.-With the ex-
ceptiOn of few moments spent in eX-
aiming United States District AttOr-
do Ito " ICdNS IuO
city, the entire afternoon was con-
sumed by the lawyers in the discussion
of the competency of certain testimony
The point involved was clearly this:
Whether evidence could be introduced
at this time on the question of conspir-
acy which led to the result of the MUIR
| der, on which John Arensdorf was not
! connected by his presence. Up to this
date this objection has been sustained
| by the court, but the state had now
reached the point, as they contend.
the great murder had been estab-
lished, and that all matters hereafter
related to that conspiracy. Whether
| ArenSdorf was present at their con
ception or not should be admitted. Al
$50 a. m, the argument ended, and the
court in passing upon the objection
said: '.An of the counsel, with
perhaps one exception, practice in this
court frequently, and hence l say that
it is the view of this court that unles:
the point raised disposes of the cast
finally, the court says but little on thu
question when passing upon it. 1t i:
the view of this court that instructions
are not to be given to the jury il
the way of argument from
the bench. Only SO much il
said as may be necessary to advise tn,
counsel of the position of the court up
on the point raised. We have arrives
at that point in the case now where tn
counsel for the state seek to induce t,
statements of one Geo. Trieber, VIII,
they allege or claim was a co-conSpira
tor with the defendant on trial. TIL
defendant objects to the testimony up
, on the ground that the indictmen
should not allege the evidence, but tn
facts showing the conspiracy. The sec
ond ground of the objection is tina
, there is not sufficient testimon
; to show a prlma facle case 6
conspiracy, hence it is not entitle
! to be admitted. The third ground {
/ objection is, as / understood it, thu
3 the testimony relates TO a period ant
{ riOr to the criminal enterprise or to til
E tendency of the alleged conspiracy, an
D hence not admissible. With referenC
: to the first point, l may say that it
r my view, as it always has been in a ca:
4 of the kind, that it's not necessal
t that the state should allege a eonspi
. acy in a charge for murder where Il
t murder is the result of cOnspira,
g on part of several persons. An indie
ment in form such as the one und
which the defendant is now on trial
sufficient to entitle the state to intT
. duce such testimony as is not Offere
e With reference to the next point in Il
d case can say that whether conspira
4 is or is not established is question
fact, Of course. for the jury. They a
d to determine whether the conspiracy
1T established. If such testimony is
,e troduced or has been introduced as
make prima facie case, then it is t
duty of the court to allow those stat
o ments to go to the jury to enable the
n to determine whether it is fact th
q, conspiracy has been established.
I'D these propositions of the law I take
be that there can be no controyer
tl There does not seem to have been a
he in the discussion of the question Il
n. has arisen. / think there is a su
be cheney of testimony to make a pril
10 faeie and entities the state to the
q PRODUCTION Of tins evidence With I
X erence to the third point, may
ell I that it is the only point d